Email

June 23, 2008

SEO Weekend Update

Should Google Adopt an Ombudsman?

Barry Welford left a comment on Michael Gray's Google Website Trends wrist slapping that asked if Google would benefit from hiring an ombudsman, or more likely a team of them. It's a novel concept, but I don't think it's particularly realistic.

Barry thinks hiring an ombudsman and bringing in a third-party would allow Google to "ensure equity". I can see his line of thinking here, but what does that even mean? You're going to have a really hard time nailing down what "fairness" and "equality" means on the Internetz and what rights users have vs. the right of Google to run its search engine however the heck it pleases. Is it fair that Google is telling the world what keywords you target, what your traffic is, and who's related to you? Is it fair that Google has established guidelines that you have to adhere to if you want to appear in their index? Is it fair that Google can remove your site from its index for any time and for any reason? Is it fair that Susan's Web site ranks higher than mine even though I'm clearly superior? Probably not, but Google is a business and it has a right to do what's best for its search engine.

Regardless of my displeasure with Google's decision to share your site information for kicks, I don't think Google is out to hurt its users or webmasters. I think they do a pretty good job most of the time of keeping their users in mind and doing what's best for the average Web searcher. Unfortunately for you and me, we're not the average Web surfer, which means we often feel wronged when Google does something to change how sites rank. In my opinion, as much as I love the geek journalism term, hiring an ombudsman would be a bad idea. Giving search marketers a person to complain to won't make them feel more heard or listened to. It's just going to raise their stress levels when they spend the entirety of their day ranting and complaining to that one person. [And slowly remove the will to live from that person. --Susan]

Are Video Conversations Next?

Kim Krause-Berg says that social media as we know it today is on its way out. People crave human contact and what we have today takes that away from us. We're missing the feeling of being with people, being able to look someone in the eye, and form a real connection with them. Kim harks to a new social media system where people can form satisfying connections. Is that why video conversation site Seesmic just earned another $6 million in funding? Is Seemic that environment or can we only develop "real" relationships in person?

I don't know. I don't even understand the appeal of Seesmic. I'm not interested in video blog comments and the idea of meeting strangers and then having conversations with them seems unappealing, if not downright terrifying. And as much as I like the social connections that I've formed on Facebook and Twitter, I realize that part (okay, a big part) of the reason why I love conferences is because I get to hug my friends and gossip with them and be silly with them in person. Maybe a system like Seesmic will be able to help bridge those two relationships.

What do you think the next level of social media is? Is it video conversation among different social groups? Would that help people like Kim get the interaction they've been missing? How do you want to interact with people online?

Question: When's The Best Day To Send An Email?

Answer: There isn't one.

Jeanniey Mullen explains that there is no longer a "best" day to send an email. In case you thought you still had control over your customers' actions, you don't. You can't simply send an email and expect your customers to act. Things must now be done on their terms, which means knowing when they're thinking about your product, what they want from you, and being aware of what they're using to read your emails. This is where checking site logs and looking at Web analytics information is super important because it gives you a clear snap shot of your core audience. If you don't know who your customer is and what they want, you don't even have a chance of getting their attention.

Fun Finds

Marty Weintraub (whose last name I can't spell regardless of how many times I try) offers up 24 different industry recruitment channels. Yowsa. Who knew there were so many SEO job boards? [We should be posting to each and every one of them. --Susan]

The Google Operating System blog gives me the heads up about how I can play my favorite YouTube video on loop by adding a simple parameter. Sweet!

Microsoft says if Yahoo fires Jerry Yang they may bid again. Yikes.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/23/08 at 4:31 PM | Comments (1)
See more entries in Branding, Email, Social Media

March 13, 2008

Killing Your Brand with Newsletter Spam

One of the non search-related blogs I keep handy in my feed reader is LeahPeah. Somewhat Dooce-like, Leah Peterson writes on an assortment of lifestyle-related topics and does a really good job getting a chuckle out the cynical likes of me. (Okay, another reason why I like her is because she’s the mom of Devon, one of my all-time favorite Bruce Clay people.) Yesterday’s Leah non-SEO blog transcended all genres when she wrote a post appropriately titled Newsletter Spam, an issue that has become increasingly frustrating to many of us as of late.

Leah was surprised to wake up one day to find 30+ newsletters sitting in her inbox that she had no recollection of subscribing to. Even worse, when she tried to systematically unsubscribe from the newsletter hell that she never asked for, she found that all newsletters are not created equal. Some are polite and make it easy for you to leave their team, while others try handcuff you to the bench and leave you without food or water.

Leah explains:

“…kudos go to the companies that allow a one step unsubscribe. You click the link, you’re out. The next best are the two click unsubscribe. You click the link, they ask you if you’re sure or to input your email, then you’re out. But BOO and BAH to the companies that make you log in to your account and search for a tiny button somewhere that says ‘newsletters’ or ‘preferences’ that is hidden on the page or 5 clicks into the site. Don’t make me hate you while I try to get off your mailing list. That is when you become SPAM to me instead of just mostly a waste of my time.”

I’d like to head over to wherever Leah is at the moment and give her a giant high five, or maybe a hug, because as those following me on Twitter can attest to, I’ve been stuck in my own newsletter spam hell lately. It seems The Knot hasn’t gotten the message that I no longer have a need for their services. In fact, I’ve unsubscribed something like six times over the past year and yet I still get their newsletter each month telling me about how awesome it is to be getting married. Now they’re even sending printed material from their sister site The Nest to my apartment, which is somewhat concerning since I didn’t live at my current apartment when I signed up for the services. What magic hat did my address get pulled out of? Or maybe they just heard I was a former Ask.com fan and assumed I was a married woman and put me on their list?

Either way, I want off. Only they won’t let me get off. And now I hate them.

I used to think that perhaps my frustration with the awful wedding site [Nice anchor text there. --Susan] My mad SEO skillz at work. Huzzah! was just because I am so immersed in Internet marketing and therefore realize that sending me your crap even though I’ve expressed disinterest is not only bad form, but also SPAM. But hearing Leah’s complaints proves otherwise. It’s not just SEOs who are bothered by email spam; everyone is bothered by email spam. When you trick users into signing up for a newsletter or refuse to them out of your clutches despite their protesting, you’re crossing the line and are spamming. What do you think Leah’s brand association with the companies spamming her will be? The next time I get engaged, do you think I’m going to go sign up at The Knot? I’m thinking not. [rimshot?]

Email marketing is a powerful tool for increasing brand awareness, strengthening your relationships with customers, and bringing in new customers, but you have to know how to use it. And part of that knowledge means making sure your emails are as transparent as possible and understanding the CAN-SPAM legislation. All of your email campaigns should be double opt-in. Each email should have an easily accessible link that allows subscribers to leave, and as Leah points out, it’d be nice if that action could be accomplished in one or two clicks. Don’t hold people hostage like The Knot does. And when users do choose to opt-out, make sure that action is processed in a timely manner.

There’s a synergy that exists between email and search marketing. When you trample your customer’s privacy in an email campaign, you’re throwing mud on your search engine marketing campaign at the same time and losing all the positive brand effects you’ve created to this point. It’s not just “polite” to get permission from users before you clutter up their inboxes, it’s a law. Customers don’t like it when you try and take advantage of them. Shocking.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 03/13/08 at 3:04 PM | Comments (0)
See more entries in Branding, Email

December 12, 2007

Scrolling Ads, Word of Mouth, Email Spam & Fun Stuff

Scrolling AdSense Ads? Why Not a Ticker?

News broke today that Google is testing a new scrolling ad format that allows users to scroll through ads by using little up and down or left and right arrows. gSpy has screenshots and a video detailing how the whole thing works. Go check it out and then come back (don’t forget to come back!).

Good? Sweet.

I just have a question for Google. What planet are you living on that you think people want to scroll through ads? Fine, some people don’t mind ads and will click on one when it seems unusually relevant or interesting. But that’s very different than having users manually click on more ads. Why would they search through ads when they have a fresh search results page staring them in the face? I’m just not sure how successful this is going to be.

It would be interesting to get some numbers on how many click-throughs the “See More Ads” link that Google places at the bottom of AdSense text ads get. Does that button see much traffic? My guess would be that no, it does not.

I get that Google is always looking for ways to increase advertising and encourage people to interact with ads. However, I’d much rather see them do what Quigo was doing where there’s a block of ads and then every few seconds one ad drops off and a fresh one comes on. At least that does a good job of attracting eyeballs thanks to the slow movement. Also, it allows Quigo to run more ads without relying on users to take any type of additional action. To me, that makes much more sense. Or maybe they already do that and I just haven’t seen it?

Do People Care About Blogger Opinion?

The findings of a soon-to-be published study are said to prove that old fashioned word of mouth is more effective than having the backing of “highly-connected influencers” like bloggers.

I was suckered in by the title but, unfortunately for me, the little press teaser contains no actual statistics or data to back up that assertion in any way. It would interesting to know what criteria they used to come to this conclusion. Did they ask people who they trust more, their friends or Robert Scoble? Did they track how quickly information was passed along? Or did they test how many people heard about X from Y and then converted in some way? I’m hoping it was something more in line with the last option.

It makes sense that people would trust their friends and family more than Jason Calacanis or Mark Cuban, and therefore be more inclined to convert. I’d still like to see some data on how exactly the study was conducted. I guess I have to check out this month’s edition of the Journal of Advertising Research. Sadly, it doesn’t seem to be online.

Really, though, all this “study” does is prove what we already know – that consumers trust information more when they hear it from someone they know. Good. Take that information and design your product to make your customers happy, all of them, not just the elite. Pamper everyone. Ask for feedback from everyone. Make every opinion count. Do that and you should have no problem gaining some positive word of mouth, regardless of who it’s coming from.

All Email Is Spam!

Okay, maybe not all, but according to Barracuda Networks, as much as 90-95 percent of email is spammy and it doesn’t look like that number is going to die down any time soon. Yikes! The Barracuda Networks study is said to be based on an analysis of more than 1 billion daily e-mail messages sent to its 50,000+ customers worldwide.

Can that really be true? Is 95 percent of your email spam or is Barracuda, “a leader in email and Web security” trying to be sensational for their own good? I’m not sure. It’s worth nothing, though, that Symantec estimates the amount of spam to be more like 71 percent, which seems considerably more likely.

What does your inbox look like? Once you take out all the Twitter notifications and Facebook friend requests, is there anything left?

Fun Finds

Scott Karp explains why he stopped using Twitter. And then the blogosphere went nuts. W00t!

A super, super post from Chris Garrett on How to Generate Post Ideas When You Are Stuck. This post is filled with great stuff!

Posted by Lisa Barone on 12/12/07 at 2:54 PM | Comments (0)
See more entries in Blogging, Branding, Email, Pay Per Click, SEO, Search Engine Optimization

November 5, 2007

Permission Marketing is Still Best

They say it’s much easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission. And while that little nugget may hold true for many of life’s funny circumstances (eating the last cupcake, taking a picture during a concert, etc), it is not true when it comes to managing customer relationship. I don’t care how polite you are during the act or how remorseful you are after, if you knowingly spam me and put my Web site in harm's way, I will never, ever forgive you. And that goes for your brand as well.

Here are just two examples of companies employing “polite” spam techniques I encountered while traveling the Internets today.

Example 1: Making people opt-out instead of in

One of email marketing’s most basic principles is the notion of the double opt-in. Joey sees your newsletter offering, subscribes and then confirms that he subscribed via a follow up email that you politely sent him. This process seems to work well for most people. It allows your customers to get access to the information they want and it ensures that you don’t look like a spammer trying to deceive potential customers. Apparently, however, Dell missed that memo.

Seth Godin shared an email a friend of his received after purchasing a new computer from Dell. It seems that Dell was so overcome with emotion over this purchase that “as a gesture of gratitude” Seth’s friend was opted into receiving their weekly Dell Small Business E-mail Update. He was even advised to watch his inbox for the abundance of promotional emails that were sure to come!

Wait – what’s that called when you’re automatically opted into something you never wanted? Oh yeah, spam!

I can’t even count the number of companies out there expressing their “gratitude” through my inbox. It makes me want to stab them all with tiny little sharp objects.

Seth went on to share an example of how The Better Business Bureau uses bait and switch tactics to get people to purchase a membership. The irony of the BBB tricking people into shelling over the cash for a membership is delicious. It’s like Santa picking your pockets as you jump off his lap.

Example 2: Services that insert hidden links for you

This is one of my favorite forms of Web spam due to how prevalent it is. Never again will I copy and paste a piece of code without reading it in it’s entirely. Why? Because 7 out of 10 times there’s something in there that shouldn’t be.

Here’s a fun example.

I know you’re all really interested in your favorite blogger (that would be me, play along) so I’m going to embed a map right here so that all of you can see where I grew up. I decide to use CommunityWalk share a map feature to help me do this. Here’s the code snippet they provide me with. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the good parts:

<iframe src="http://www.communitywalk.com/groups/set_commercial_domain/184956" onload="if (this.src.indexOf('http://www.communitywalk.com/iframe/content/184956') == -1) this.src='http://www.communitywalk.com/iframe/content/184956?zoom=-2' + location.hash" width="300" height="300" frameborder="0" name="ff_cw_184956" id="ff_cw_184956" scrolling="no"></iframe><a href="http://www.weddingmapper.com" style="position:absolute; top: -1000px; left: -1000px;">The best wedding planning tool</a> <a href=http://www.communitywalk.com/smithtown_long_island/map/184956 style='display:none'>CommunityWalk Map - Smithtown, Long Island</a><img src='http://www.communitywalk.com/images/blank.gif' onload="setTimeout(function() {document.getElementById('ff_cw_184956').onload()}, 100)" />

Hmm, a link to weddingmapper.com that’s positioned far off the page? How did that get in there?

Surely, they can’t be trying to deceive me, right? I mean, they did tell me that I was free to remove the bad parts if I wanted. Well, at least that’s what they told me right before they changed their mind and instructed me to display the code in its entirety.

Take a look.

Methinks they’re confused.

But they’re not confused. They’re trying to take advantage of me. Putting that link in there has nothing to do with “helping the search engines”, as they claim, it’s all about them trying to increase their backlinks while I go on not even realizing it's there.

And even if they do give you “permission” to edit the code, it doesn’t make their act any less deceptive. It doesn’t make them any less guilty, nor does it help customers resolve that bad taste they got in their mouth when they found the dirty code in there to begin with.

Realize that no matter how polite you are about your efforts to spam your customers, you’re still spamming them and it’s not okay. By sending them that newsletter they never asked for, by opting them in to receive coupons and discounts they’re not interested in, and by inserting hidden links onto their Web site, you’re taking away their choice, showing them that you don’t care about them and potentially destroying your brand’s image.

Don’t do it.

It’s never okay to jeopardize your site's reputation or to knowingly mislead your customers. This is how you find yourself with a giant reputation management problem when the search results are about what an evil spammer you are instead of how great/useful/wicked awesome your services are.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 11/ 5/07 at 5:28 PM | Comments (2)
See more entries in Email

September 4, 2007

Has Your Blog Replaced Your Company Newsletter?

Okay, so you have this Web site thing. It’s that place where you publish lots of information about the goods or services you offer and sometimes people come by and actually buy stuff. Then you have your blog. Your blog is the place where you author opinion, point to interesting news or maybe just whine about what a bad day you’re having. However you use it, your blog gives you that direct line of communication with those that are important to you and your business.

Now that you have all these new online mediums that you’re using to communicate with potential customers, do you really need a company newsletter on top of that or have blogs replaced the traditional e-newsletter? That’s the question Dawud Miracle is asking.

For me, no, a company blog does not replace an email newsletter. You can argue that if you started your newsletter as a way to generate conversation or to get people talking about your brand, then yeah, maybe those goals are now being met by your blog. But even so, there’s still room for an email newsletter in your Internet marketing campaign.

There are plenty of people who still think RSS is some sort of flesh-eating disease. Plenty of people who don’t know what a blog is, but do grasp email. Emails are those things that appear in their inbox and tell them stuff. Sometimes there are even those blue links that they can click on that take them to new and exciting worlds. My mother loves email. Sometimes when she finds an interesting site or a funny photo she even saves it to her AOL Favorite Places. She’s super savvy.

And even if your audience does grasp blogging and RSS, that monthly or bi-monthly newsletter is still a good way to reinforce your brand and keep yourself at their top of mind. ResourceShelf is a great example of this. Gary Price and crew have a great blog at RS, with lots of valuable information that you won’t find anywhere else. I subscribe to Gary’s blog and I read his feed as it comes in, but sometimes my brain is so swamped with SEO news, that I miss a good nugget or two. It’s not until I get his weekly newsletter on Thursday that I think, hey, maybe I should spend some additional time over there and see if I missed anything. And when I do head over, I’m usually guaranteed to find a valuable post that I skipped over in my hurry to empty my feed reader. With Gary’s weekly newsletter, I’d be missing out on a lot of good information

At Bruce Clay, we have both an SEO blog and an SEO newsletter. They’re two completely different entities. The styles are different, the voice is different, and the intent is different. Our blog is where Lisa gets a little mouthy and gives you her opinion even though you never asked for it; our newsletter is where we publish articles related to Internet marketing. It’s where we give you an intelligent recap of the past two weeks in search, keep you up-to-date on upcoming events, tell you who just got a new job, pass on industry rumors, etc. It’s geared towards education.

We keep the newsletter around because it really does serve an entirely different purpose than the blog. We also realize that far more people read our SEO newsletter than they do our blog. Susan says this is because some people want their SEO news sans Lisa. That’s just crazy talk to me.

Dawud says he’s beginning to question his need for an email list. He mentions the backlash that’s occurring against interruption marketing and how users are becoming less and less tolerant to spam. And he’s not wrong. People hate spam and are becoming increasingly hostile towards it. This is why your email newsletter should not come even remotely close to resembling an email from that Nigerian cousin you never knew you had. If your newsletter is primarily targeted towards selling, then yeah, you may want to drop it. Focus on educating and providing valuable information instead. You’ll win far more friends and customers that way.

If you’re out there wondering if your newly popular blog means you can throw away that email template, my answer would be no. I think that when used in tandem, blogs and newsletters are actually really great complements to one another. Why weaken your Internet marketing message by using only one?

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/ 4/07 at 3:03 PM | Comments (6)
See more entries in Blogging, Branding, Email

April 25, 2007

Keynote Roundtable Panel: Content Is King! (Again?)

Happy Wednesday! You guys are totally missing out because I’m doing my happy I-got-coffee-and-life-is-good dance to the blaring Nelly Furtado playing in the ballroom right now. Take a second and imagine all the crazy shimmying in your minds, if you will. Huzzah!

Okay, knock it off. It’s time to get serious. Jon Fine (BusinessWeek) is moderating this morning’s keynote roundtable panel with speakers Jason Hirschhorn (Sling Media Group), Kourosh Karimkhany (Wired Digital), Suzie Reider (YouTube) and Caroline Little (Washingtonpost.com, Newsweek Interactive).

Before we get to the keynote, Drew Ianni is back to deliver some opening remarks and housekeeping details. He says that some of the session rooms have been changed due to overcrowding. Oh, no! I’m going to get lost again, aren’t I? More running in heels for me.

Drew shares some noteworthy terms he heard yesterday including:

• Video Snacking – Heh. I heard this all day yesterday and it made me giggle and slightly hungry all day.
• Web 3.0 – Thankfully, I haven’t heard this.
• Engagement – Are we still talking about Rand? That happened 2 months ago, people. Let’s move on!
• Mastering “The Art of Conversation” – Creating a brand dialogue.

Now that we’re updated on yesterday, it’s time for today. The keynote speakers are all comfortably seated on the blue couch and orange chairs that I’m stealing out of the conference hall Friday night. Don’t tell anyone.

Jon says if content is indeed king there are a lot of people in his neck of the woods not feeling it right now. The value of certain top tier content is not being recognized or monetized in the new media world. These new distribution platforms have also shown that professional content isn’t always needed.

It’s worth noting that today when we talk about content we’re not just talking about professionally written words. We’re talking about all forms of social media, but especially video.

Before the panelists are allowed to speak, Jon warms them that if they’re caught using the phrase “the consumer is in control” they will be seriously punished. Awesome.

Caroline starts out talking about her experiences working for Washingtonpost.com and says that her company has an unprecedented audience. Ad revenues are growing at alarmingly fast rate. Her goal is to make enough money in alternative forms of media so she can continue to build what is core to her mission which is newsgathering. And that’s newsgathering for all forms of media, not just print.

Jon asks if the power is with the content holders or the aggregators?

Kourosh says it’s still with the content holders. The aggregation is becoming less important because of Google and the search results. Having good old HTML on your site with good content is the surest way of getting content to your audience. Create the content and the engines will find it.

Suzie from YouTube says, like love and marriage, you can’t have one without the other. Content and aggregators are in control because we need them both for the system to work.

Jason says content is still the King. Distribution without content doesn’t mean much but the biggest pockets on the Web are sites like YouTube, Yahoo, Google, etc. These sites aren’t creating content, they’re aggregating it. What’s genius about Google is Google’s platform is not Google.com. It’s everywhere AdSense is. Google doesn’t actually create anything but they’re involved in everything. That’s powerful.

Kouosh says where Wired gets the most value is making sure they’re ending up in the search results. Jason says a key factor is that not everyone needs to be a Time Warner. Sites are content to be smaller and getting less traffic. They know if you are doing a deal with AdSense or Panama, it’s not just about the big publishers. In aggregate, the small publishers mean something.

Suzie says the real question is what is content today? When you hear content people think of professionally created content. They don’t think of the stuff that’s on YouTube, but it is. That may be true but that just means all those people are wrong. All those YouTube cat videos are content. It doesn’t matter how you feel about cats.

Jon questions Suzie on the rumors that YouTube is experimenting with testing ad models and when they’ll “flip the switch” and make those live.

Suzie responds that YouTube cares a lot about their content partners and they want to reward them. YouTube is approaching testing in an academic way. They’re looking at the ad executions on the watch page (the page where the videos reside) to find a system that will not interrupt the user experience but will provide a revenue stream for these content producers. They’re testing very quick commercial intros at the beginning and than maybe one at the end. What they don’t want to do is interrupt the user experience. It’s not going to be a great unveiling, she says, it’s going to be an evolving process. Suzie says they’re being really careful not to screw it up, but content products may begin seeing ad models as early as this summer.

Jon says one of the reasons YouTube took off was the user experience. Will a bumper or pre-roll ad disrupt that experience?

Suzie says it might. She doesn’t think a :15 pre-roll in front of a :27 clip is going to be a great experience. YouTube is going to keep looking at it.

Jason argues that pre-roll ads don’t work because users are clicking expecting content and they don’t want to have to wait for it. Placing a bumper on a second video may work as long as users know where they are. No one has figured out a model that works yet. Advertisers need to be very flexible about what the units are.

Kourosh says he’s a big fan of YouTube and with that the love fest begins. He says Wired is a big supporter and they use it everyday. They have their own video solution but their journalists and editors prefer YouTube over their own. Aw, that’s nice.

Jason jokes that YouTube is cool but he’s selling Slingboxes out by the taxi stand.

Jon asks if advertisers are comfortable taking from what’s online?

Jason says they’re not because there’s a whole system built against NOT going down that road. However, what we’re seeing is that users care less about “quality” versus great, funny content. The utility that we’ve gotten out of SNL shorts has been the same as professional content. There’s a great farm club and they’ll pick talent out from there. Advertisers have to get with it and realize that they don’t control their brands online.

Jon asks Caroline what she thinks about Yahoo now partnering with 12 major newspaper companies to share revenue.

Caroline says that if you look at the people who have signed up with Yahoo they’re primarily smaller companies. The deals were originally built around jobs, now it’s changing. If you look at the larger newspapers (like Caroline’s), they haven’t signed up for big distribution deals because they already have fairly decent distribution. The smaller papers are looking at something very different than what we’re looking at.

Jason cautions that you also have to look at the long term. Who controls the sales in those deals? You have to protect yourself. It’s not about copyright; it’s about control and sharing.

Kourosh becomes the coolest guy in the room saying he’s totally comfortable with users mashing up Wired content. Wired allows users to take their content, modify it, and throw it up on their site as long as they link back and they’re not using it for commercial purposes. They realize their audience is actually smarter than they are in some areas.

Caroline doesn’t seem quite as comfortable as Kourosh with letting users take control of the content. That’s because she’s from a “big media company”. She believes there’s a scale with reporting and editing that is useful. If you’re a political reporter you know more than a layperson who just dabbles in it. I think there’s a role for reporters and journalists, she says. I think Caroline’s not making a lot of fans this morning, heh.

The difference with Wired and sites like Washingtonpost.com is that Wired really lays the framework for users and then let’s them take control over it. I think users respect that. I also think Wired has the perfect audience for adapting that kind of business model.

Jason says this stuff is going to happen the way it’s going to happen. Major media has put way too much effort into fighting it instead of letting the floodgates open and learning how to monetize it. I totally agree with Jason the approach Wired seems to be taking. Big media needs to wake up.

Caroline says there is a definite attitude in media NOT to send people off their site or link to a competitor and it’s a losing proposition; the Web doesn’t work that way. The major media still haven’t accepted things like blogs.

Kourosh says you make money from the conversation the same way you did before. The only thing difference is that these days the conversation is a lot more interesting than the static voice it once was. He shares a funny story where a Wired reported wanted to interview Jason Calacanis but didn’t want to do it through email (which Jason was fighting for) because the writer didn’t want to lose the conversation and the ability to go off on tangents. Jason blogged about it in the normal angry Jason way and proclaimed that Wired was afraid of email. Wire, smartly, used their blog to respond and before any knew it the conversation that was created was a lot more interesting than the actual interview probably would have been.

He’s right. That conversation is more interesting because it’s real. Not to use the popularity of reality TV analogy used in yesterday’s Blogging session, but there is some truth to that. It’s interesting to watch people react in their natural way. It’s always more interesting to see Jason Calacanis act out the way Jason does than to get him into a cold interview format over email. Which conversation would you rather ease drop in?

The lesson of the keynote is that video is content and that big media needs to recognize that people do want to have these conversations. Poor, Caroline. She’s taking all the heat for being part of “big media”. Jason wants to see traditional media companies taking the lead in these conversations. I think we all do.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 04/25/07 at 11:01 AM | Comments (0)
See more entries in Blogging, Branding, Email, SEM Events, Social Media, ad:techSF07

April 24, 2007

Measurement and Metrics

I’m not sure it was a brilliant idea to put an analytics-based session at the end of Day 1, but here we are. At an analytics-based session on the end of Day 1. Ah, I crack me up. Good times, good times.

So, Rick Bruner (DoubleClick) is acting as moderator amongst panelists Young-Bean Song (Atlas), Chad Parizman (Scripps Networks Interactive), Darren Stoll (Macys.com) and John Squire (CoreMetrics). Am I the only one who just wants to scoop DoubleClick’s Rick up, lock him in a room, and grill him about Google? [Yes.--Susan] Okay, moving on then.

Rick starts off saying that the Internet is much more accountable than any other medium, however, it’s still very complicated. He asks the panel to talk about a client that from a measurement point of view has really made a breakthrough. Who’s getting it right?

Young doesn’t out a company, more a way of doing things. He thinks companies that are doing things right are those that combine their online presence with display advertising. He says it makes sense that there would be some kind of combined effect and obviously there is. He states that advertisers who run campaigns simultaneously with other online efforts saw a considerable lift in conversation rate. To those of us in search, this makes total sense.

Several of the panelists talked about the need for analysts to looking beyond the last click or the last ad seen in order to find a richer story. Darren talked about this in depth, highlighting some of the stuff Macy’s has been working on.

For example, he noted that Macy’s tracks their marketing programs through CoreMetrics, as well as a separate email tracking system. Often while comparing data he’ll find a significant discrepancy from what CoreMetrics reports to what their email tracking program reports. Digging deeper he can see that there is so much activity tied to multiple mediums that to have that cut and dry “this is what got them here” is insufficient. Often people will click through the email, then leave, and come back later in the day through Google and make a conversion. In this case, Google would get credit for the conversion even through it was really sparked by the email.

For advertisers, looking beyond the last click or last ad seen creates a richer story. Sometimes an ad that didn’t look good in reporting is actually found to be delivering really well. It just wasn’t the last ad seen so it doesn’t get the credit. More thorough analysis is used to see that credit and reallocate budgeting channels accordingly.

Darren notes that Macy’s is working hard to identify the different value points throughout the site. Historically, they’ve given the last click credit and used that to determine what’s working but now they’re looking at the long chain of events.

Chad chimes in from a publisher’s perspective saying that their differentiator is video. He says he’s had some really great success with custom Web-based content sponsorship. The hot buttons in measuring video are things like completion of content, watching another video, just starting a video, etc. He wants to see users watching multiple videos in the same session and coming back for more.

You can also using metric information to see the relationship between online researchers who buy things offline. John’s company does a lot of work with tracking customer behavior offline. He uses things like membership IDs, email addresses, and tracking cookies to see what ads are leading users into the physical store to make a purchase.

Young commented that you don’t even need a big CRN infrastructure to figure out the offline/online scenario. He says, imagine you have a simple promotion in the offline store where every time someone buys something you give them a ticket to go to a Web site and enter their email address to see if they “won” a free gift. You don’t need everyone to go, you just need a sample. Once they give you their email or some other identifier, you can go back and see if they’ve ever spent time on your site before. You can use that information to better target products to them in the future.

Rick polls the panelists and asks them to identify one aspect of analytics that is still a really big challenge for their company.

Darren says his company struggles with the cross channel analytics. Figuring out what their online activities are doing to drive offline activity. They’re striving to be smarter on an individual level in order to engage consumers more intelligently.

Somehow the other panelists are let off the hook and Rick moves on to his new question: Where do you think advertisers are not doing metrics well?

Chad says that marketers can come up with a compelling story but they have to get into the equation early on. The good thing about Web analytics is that you can track everything. The downside is that you can track everything. [*forced laughter*] The skill in analytics comes in knowing when to track, how to track and how to report on the date you’re receiving. Chad says this is his company’s stumbling block.

John says advertisers are getting caught up in the hottest new thing instead of spending that dollar on things that are already known to convert well. The thing people struggle with is that there are so many ways to go out and address customers that advertisers get distracted.

The always opinionated Young says advertisers need to get looking at view through conversions. VTCs are when a consumer sees an ad, doesn’t click on it, but then converts. Even though there was no click, the conversation is still attributed to the last ad seen. Young says he’s seen no evidence that VTCs are a significant measure of direct response. Actually, it’s not a measure of direct response at all. It is a measure of targeted reach. If you get more VTC from one site than another, you’re getting a more targeted reach. Basically, Young things VTCs are named wrong.

Darren agrees with Young and says he doesn’t put a lot of weight on VTCs. All they are doing is capturing a sense of the quality of the traffic that’s seeing that ad. When he’s optimizing his marketing he’s looking at what sales are being driven by this and clicks.

What is missing in the field of metrics?

Chad says talent. Heh. I think that’s a great place to end!

See you tomorrow. Blogger’s gotta eat.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 04/24/07 at 6:57 PM | Comments (1)
See more entries in Analytics, Branding, Email, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines, ad:techSF07

AdTech Keynote: What The Past Five Years Can Teach Us

Hi, friends. Yes, we really are doing this again. I have 17 sessions to cover over the next three days (assuming I hit all the keynotes). My eyes are already welling up with tears. And even worse, the closest Starbucks is still too far to walk to in heels. Somebody hates me and I’m pretty sure it’s Susan.

Despite my non-caffeinatedness, it’s time for this morning’s keynote. On stage, Lynne Johnson (FastCompany.com) is set to interview keynote speaker Brian McAndrews (aQuantive, Inc) on one of the coolest navy blue couches I’ve ever seen. That’s how you know this is an advertising conference – the sets totally rock. I wonder if that blue couch and the accompanying orange chairs would fit in our rental car? They’d look wicked sweet in my apartment.

Drew Ianni starts with some opening remarks and making San Jose vs. San Francisco jokes that I don’t understand. Drew says he’s from the 408. Or something. Other people laughed so I did too (I already feel inferior because I don’t have a blackberry. I don’t want to feel totally out of the loop). Thankfully, he moves on to some Ad:Tech housekeeping and says Ad:Tech is about how digital is transforming marketing communications. It’s given me a job for one thing. He also talks about the upcoming Ad:Tech awards and how there will be free booze. People laugh again and this time I can comfortably join in. I, too, understand the humor in free booze.

Drew welcomes the marketing maelstrom. Luckily, Drew defined “maelstrom” before my brain had a chance to explode. A maelstrom is a powerful, often violent whirlpool sucking in objects within a given radius. That sounds disgusting.

From there, Drew offers a State of the Industry and talks about things like DoubleClick, YouTube, how content is king, the rich getting richer (99 percent of online revenue is going to the Top 10 sites), and the importance of measurement. All good stuff.

And with that, it’s time for this morning’s keynote. Yay.

Lynne says welcome (Welcome, everyone!) and asks Brian, whose been in the game for a long time, how he came out of the “bust” five years ago.

The key for Brian was that his company was founded on the idea that digital was going to be valuable, and that over time everything would become digital. He says that even during the downturn he knew his company was going to be worthwhile and that marketers were going to pay for that. His company had a lot of people who continued to believe in the direction they were headed.

Brian says that behind the scenes they stayed afloat by trying to bring traditional companies into the digital space. They didn’t just focus on those “hot companies” with unsustainable business model. They diversified revenue streams. Perhaps most importantly, they had a relative mature management team comprised of people from different experiences who had already been through the down times and knew how to handle it. I think that’s pretty important. You want people who know how to handle disaster and find their way out of it.

Lynne questions Brian on what’s different from the last boom to today’s boom. Brain says there’s a more stable foundation of marketers in the industry. The reality is there are so many companies now who are firmly footed in this industry. Back in 2000, a lot of the high flyers were unprofitable. Today that isn’t the case. The companies that are footed in this place are valuable and marketers themselves are very strategic. They’re not getting into digital because they “have to”. They’re getting involved because they recognize that it’s good business and that’s where customers and viewers are going. It’s not a knee-jerk reaction, which is very different from years past.

Lynne asks: Where do you think we’re going in the next five years? Will we still be looking to integrate traditional and digital, or will be all digital?

We’re going to be closer to all digital, states Brian. Ultimately all media will become digital. In the next five years, you’ll see significant shift. A key development will be with television. By 2008, 43 percent of all households will have video on demand in some form and we’re already seeing that with devices like TiVo. (I wish I had TiVo. I’m missing some quality cheese programming this week.) [I love my TiVo. --Susan]

Brian’s company is taking their learned lessons from the Internet (technology, analytics, etc.) and repurposing it for the other mediums. Brian also talks about inserting dynamic ads into television (Google? Are you listening?). There will be more fragmentation. The Web site is replacing the :30 commercial in terms of defining the brand of a company. The ability to interact deeply with a Web site and have an immersive interactive experience is where marketers are going today.

Brain says the reason dynamic ads and on-demand programming is important is because consumers want it. Also, cable companies recognize this is an opportunity to respond to the desire for consumer control and make their product more readily available to them. This gives them an economic model to do that. This is where the world is going.

Lynne says: Lots of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) going on lately. Why do you think this trend is coming about?

According to Brian, the trend of M&A has been there off and on all along. It was on the “off” during the burst because companies didn’t want to bet on companies. This is a very dynamic industry with lots of innovations. One of the similarities between now and five years ago are that companies you’ve never heard of 5 years ago are now at the top of their game. Think Facebook (hi, girls!), YouTube, etc.

Brian’s strategy is that they’re not a roll-up. It’s not about growth. It’s about understanding what their customers need and then deciding if it’s better to build it or to buy it. Brian said his company’s acquisitions are driven by what the customers want, especially geographically. Brian says global expansion is both an offensive move and a defensive move. To Brain it makes more sense for companies to grow organically than through acquisitions.

Lynne: Often we’re hearing a lot about integration, social media, video, etc. It’s really changing the way the business is developing. What really is integration?

Brian says what marketers ultimately want is one view of their customers. They want to interact with them through various channels and learn more about them and what they’re interested in. Consumer A is interested in X and we’ve reached them through Y and Z. You can use this information to target them later on. Traditional agencies used to come up with a big idea for TV and then try and repurpose it through radio, print and billboards. This is not the model of the future.

The model of the future is that we have to think about all the channels upfront. When we think about messaging a consumer, we need to find an approach that is relevant to all mediums. You have to think upfront about the creative message and what the interactive is that your consumers will have with that message. Where do you want to be seen? Where do you not want to be seen? It’s more work, but you get a lot more data too. Brian’s belief is that digital becomes the center where marketers are left much better informed about how users are going to interact.

Lynne says mobile is a totally different beast with no advertising standard. How should marketers be creative?

Brian says when he thinks about mobile he fears that trying to standardize it too quickly will kill it. Mobile is different, he says. There’s a certain utility and value to mobile that’s very quick. Users are looking for things to “snack on”, not necessarily to watch an entire full length movie. His feeling is people will be creative but he says let’s learn and take the time to make some mistakes and experiment before creating standards that everyone has to adapt to. Amen, my friend!

Lynne asks about social media and questions Brian about his company is working with clients.

Brian calls social media an interesting change in the landscape. There are constantly things coming out and consumers are defining the marketplace. In turn, this advertising is content they’re deciding how they want to receive that and how they want to avoid it. It’s another part of the media fragmentation. Social media is here to stay. People want to have the opportunity to interact, to make their opinions known, to share content with their peers, etc. Viral may become the new broadcast.

Marketers need to listen to those consumers – go to blogs and see what’s being said about you. Use that big focus group to see how people are naturally reacting to your message. Also, recognize that “interactive” means two-way. You can have a really long interactive with consumers that you could never have before. You can see when they left your page, what you asked for that turned them away, how long do they spend on our page? In return for that learning you have to take some risks. You need to be willing to listen, to be open and figure out a way to measure it.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 04/24/07 at 11:57 AM | Comments (2)
See more entries in Analytics, Branding, Email, SEM Events, ad:techSF07

December 18, 2006

Will Goodmail Make Friends in the UK?

Um, no.

Precision Marketing (via TW) reports that the geniuses behind AOL and Yahoo’s Goodmail campaign will launch a similar “paid-for” email venture in the United Kingdom. That would be awesome had, you know, the system actually worked in the States or gotten any kind of backing whatsoever. But it didn’t. So why would it be adopted in the UK?

The perceived idea behind these pay-to-send email systems is that charging emailers a small fee to send a piece of mail will deter the spammy mass mailers from overloading your inbox. The problem is that it doesn’t. I know, it’s shocking, but spammers aren’t going to stop emailing you simply because others are willing to pay an admission fee. They’re simply going to get smarter about it.

My problem with these paid-for email services is that they try and mask the problem instead of fixing it. Instead of email service providers putting their efforts into fighting spam, they’re more apt to charge companies to fight the war for them. There are so many problems with this. In my eyes, ESPs who adopt this system are selling out their customers.

First of all, it’s self-serving. It gives ESPs no incentive to better their spam detecting techniques. By working to fight spam they would actually be taking money out of their own pockets. This system puts it in their best financial interests to provide a weaker service. Why would anyone support that? The email that makes it into your inbox should be there based on your ESPs ability to trust the sender, not because they paid for it. Email is not pay per click.

Second, paid-for email will act as an obstacle for nonprofits and small businesses who can’t afford to pay for every piece of email they send. That’s why lots of companies send email – because it’s free and print mailings costs money. There’s something very wrong about asking honest companies to use their marketing budgets to cover their email costs simply because ESPs aren’t improving spam filters as fast as spammers are learning to get past them. It’s almost backwards.

Advocates of Goodmail (read: those that stand to make money off it) say the system will manage mail in a way that will make it “easy” for recipients to complain about spammy messages. They also add that if there are too many complaints, the sender will lose their Goodmail account.

Until they create a new one?

The jaded email reader in me believes that spammers will go through Goodmail accounts like they go through servers and IPs today. This doesn’t solve the problem; it’s putting a non-waterproof band-aid on it that will fall off at the first sign of contact. It’s good for those who stand to make a lot of money off it, but it’s bad for setting email standards.

And for the record, (despite what Susan may tell you) I don’t like complaining. I don’t want to have to grumble about the amount of spam in my email. I’d rather it just not be there in the first place. By legitimizing spam it’s basically giving up on the fight to abolish it.

If you’re looking for a way to put trust back in your inbox, we at Bruce Clay recommend the 1st Certified email system. It’s free to download and each time you use it the company makes a digital fingerprint that will certify that email address later one. Better yet, each time you click on an email from an advertiser, 20 percent of the revenue from that click is donated to charity of your choice. You can’t get much better than that.

We can all admit that spam isn't going to disappear any time soon, but that doesn’t mean we should sit back and watch it take over our inbox. The way to combat spam is to actually try and combat spam. It’s not to make people pay to get around it. That idea didn’t fly in the US, and I don’t think it’s going to be well received in the UK.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 12/18/06 at 4:07 PM
See more entries in Email

November 16, 2006

Whip Email Campaigns into Shape For The Holidays

Regardless whether you love ‘em, hate ‘em or live for ‘em, the holidays are coming. There’s no escaping it, next Thursday is Thanksgiving, which means while you’re suffering through forced family conversation and turkey (personally, I’ll be on a delightful mini-break), your customers will be talking about their holiday plans. And according to Advertising.com’s 2006 holiday survey, those plans include a lot of online shopping.

Shoppers are expected to hit the URLs early this year and spend even more than they did in 2005. With customers salivating with cash in hand, now might be a good time to remind them of your existence.

The holiday season offers marketers an unparallel opportunity to reach out to current and prospective customers. And one of the best ways to do that is by using holiday emails. If your holiday campaigns aren’t finished yet, you better stop eyeing that turkey leg and get to work. Here are some tips for creating awesome deck-the-hall-worthy holiday emails.

• Personalize, Personalize, Personalize -- We all get a little needier during the holidays (you feel that way too, right? Right??), so reach out to customers and show them you’ve been paying attention. Address them by name, offer products related to the ones they’ve already purchased, mention the city they live in, etc. Show them you know who they are – or at least pretend that you do.
• Holiday Templates -- Which email would put you in the holiday buying spirit – the same old generic template you’ve been seeing all year, or fresh and fun, high-impact holiday-inspired greeting card? I think we know the answer. Contact your email service provider to see what kind of holiday templates they offer. It’s likely they offer a wide-range of fun holiday templates for you to choose from.

  Or if you're one of those folks with design skills, create your own! But be careful, avoid the smiling reindeers and frantic colored lights design, there’s a difference between embracing the holiday spirit and looking like a 3rd grader’s holiday sweater.

• Give Those Heartstrings a Gentle Tug – It the holiday’s, darn it. If you can’t form an emotional connection with your customers today, when can you? Hint back to the days of yore and help give customers that sought after warm and fuzzy emotional aftertaste.

  To me, the absolute best example of this is Starbucks “Its Red Again” campaign. It’s Thursday and I’ve already been there three times this week. There’s just something about those red cups, yummy holiday flavors, and decked out store front that makes me keep coming back for more wonderfully overpriced coffee. [Gingerbread lattes are the real reason for the holiday season. --Susan]

• Highlight Holiday Sales and Promotions – Whether it’s free shipping or 10 percent off their entire order, customers like feeling like they’re getting something a little extra. Offer incentives to encourage customers to explore the depth of your site.
• Offer Gift ideas – Finding the perfect gift is never easy. Make your customers' lives a little easier by offering them suggestions for special holiday gifts. Highlight the best products available for mom, dad, siblings, that special someone, and even that special I-think-I-like-you-but-we-haven’t-had-the-talk-yet person. Presenting them with a list of unique gift ideas gives you the chance to highlight some of your favorite products and it draws them in by catching their interest, encouraging them to click further into your site.
• Present a Call to Action – Don’t get so caught up in setting the tone that you forget to tell customers what you want them to do. Invite them to explore your site or to come and visit your brick and mortar store. Don’t let your holiday emailing be confused with just another holiday greeting card.
• Say Thank You! – You should be doing this anyway, but it’s even more important during the holidays. When a customer makes a purchase or completes some other action, offer a genuine thank you. Whether it’s a short email back or a surprise free gift with purchase, this will help reinforce a positive brand image, show your customers you’re a real person, and will encourage customers to make a return visit.

Don’t miss out on the holiday shopping season. It’s time to get that holiday email campaign finished up and start sending them out to customers. Following the tips above should ensure everyone has a most enjoyable fourth quarter.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 11/16/06 at 2:08 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

November 15, 2006

Email Marketing Even Harder in Europe

If you’re anything like Susan, you’re not a big fan of all the work that goes into creating and sending out targeted emails to your customers. But according to DMNews, it’s a task that’s even harder in Europe.

I know, we can hear our Yankee readers sighing and rolling their eyes at this very moment (Susan is no doubt about to launch a heavy object straight over my computer monitor), but could it really be true? Is successful email marketing even harder for European sites than it is here in the States? DMNews breaks it down for us.

In the United States, there are a small number of email service providers that users are loyal to. You have your ISP provided emails, work related or domain-specific emails, or emails that sport a fancy @gmail.com, @yahoo.com or @hotmail.com at the very end of it. (Fine, maybe there’s a @aol.com in there too, but those users are dying fast – no pun intended. Oh no, here comes the hate mail.). These three trusted types of addresses are used by a wide range of users. The commonality makes it easier for marketers to test and ensure that these ESPs are bug-free and delivering their message properly. However, that’s not the case overseas.

In Europe, ESPs are considerably more fragmented. You have all the major players listed above, but then you also have the other guys like Virgin.net, BT, Wannadoo and a host of others. The multitude of ESPs exposes European marketers to a host of new deliverability issues. Marketers must now make sure that each ESP is displaying their emails properly (rendering images, not misaligning text, etc.) and that they are getting through the various spam filters.

Of course, there are also ISP issues that marketers must be concerned with, though studies have shown European ISPs have a much higher deliverability rate than those in the US.

The second problem that DMNews notes is widespread language differences.

Sure, the US is plenty culturally diverse, but for the most part, we all speak the same language. This gives US marketers an advantage in reaching customers. However, in Europe that’s not the case. The article notes:

“The European market includes a number of countries with different languages, cultural traditions and demographics. HP is one e-Dialog client that sends e-mails to 18 different countries in various languages.”

That’s 18 different emails in 18 different languages. I fear for the safety of the unlucky Bruce Clay employee that has to tell Susan she needs to format our newsletter 18 different ways. He’s bound to lose an eye, an arm, or perhaps an entire upper torso.

Another problem facing European email marketers are cultural differences. Personalizing an email for one country may make it offensive or ineffective in another.

So what is a savvy email marketer to do in order to target customers based on varying ISPs, ESPs, language and cultural differences?

First, determine if you should really be targeting all of Europe. Where are your customers more centrally located? Are they in France, Sweden, Spain, the UK? It may be that you can save yourself a little time and sanity just by focusing on select European regions that have similar a language and cultural traditions.

If not, then it’s time to roll up your sleeves and start segmenting.

Break down your customer list based on language, cultural beliefs, ESP and start creating customer profiles to give yourself a better idea of who you’re targeting. Then, tweak your newsletter to meet each profile needs. This includes translating newsletters, making subtle (or not so subtle) design changes, tweaking the tone, writing new articles, whatever you feel is necessary. Yes, it’s tedious, but if each segment is important to the success of your business, it will be time well spent.

Once you have your different versions, you have to test them all individually to see what needs further repair. Take all the lessons you’ve learned from creating your first email campaign, and apply it here. It’s the same process 18 times over.

If you have trouble doing it yourself, just let us know. We’d be happy to send Susan over to help you. [Why are you picking on me? What did I do to you? Is this about the fact that I still owe you cookies?--Susan] -- Yes!

Posted by Lisa Barone on 11/15/06 at 5:16 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

October 11, 2006

Search Headlines

Why Hasn't The Google Algo Been Leaked?

A DP thread (via SER) ponders why the super secret Google algorithm hasn't been leaked like the hoards of other "top secret" Google information. If I had to guess, I would say it's because (a) the algorithm is constantly changing and (b) Google hasn't entrusted the complete recipe to its secret sauce to any one living soul. Matt doesn't know, Eric Schmidt says he doesn't know, I'd gamble that Larry and Sergey don't know (anymore). It's probably a safe bet that Joe knows one part, John knows another, Jeremy knows part of the middle and Jack knows a part the other three doesn't even know exists.

Another theory? Google engineers like their jobs. I bet you Duke knows, though. Duke always knows.

Yahoo! Adds NOODP tag

MSN did it, Google did it and now Yahoo! has followed suit and added the NOODP tag to allow site owners to instruct Yahoo! not to use the description found in their cobweb-infested ODP listing. Unfortunately, as Barry notes, they still won't let users opt out of using their Yahoo! directory info. Baby steps, people.

Spammers are smarter than you

How can spammers get their spam-filled-Viagra-promoting email passed your customers' spam filter while your email campaign gets prominently lodged in the junk mail and lost? Simple. They're working harder at it. While you're working to create compelling copy, spammers are experimenting with new message templates and tactics to learn the newest ways to bypass the spam filters. Meanwhile, you're using the tactics spammers used years ago which are now blocked.

Creating a strong message is important, but if you're seeing a high unopened rate, it may be because of obstacles in your email program. Complying with CAN-SPAM is only a good start.

David Naylor is not a happy camper

David shares why he's given up giving people SEO advice in public forums – they always tell him he's wrong. The post is almost difficult to read as David is seething through most of it, but his point is worthy. There are lots of non-reputable sites out there who will fight to the death to defend their sketchy practices. Plenty of people will claim they're not hiding text, will call a link farm a site map and scream that their way is the right way. To all those people, yes, you're completely right, now go away.

The problem with David's approach is that well-intentioned users who could benefit from David's experience miss out on the information. Sure, there are others to fill in the gaps, but everyone brings something different to the table. By David taking his ball and going home, we all miss out on a little something.

Spamhaus Warns of Potential Attack

Anti-spam group Spamhaus Project warns users that if a Chicago judge signs an order to suspend the spamhaus.org domain (which is expected), it could unleash up to 50 billion spam emails a day to users worldwide.

The Spamhaus domain is being threatened with a suspension after the UK group has refused to pay the $11.7 million settlement it owes for misidentifying e360Insight as a spammer and placing it on its blacklist. Spamhaus refuses to comply with the ruling because they believe the US has no jurisdiction over the case and complying would open up "a tidal wave of lawsuits by spammers". Instead, they'd rather unleash a tidal wave of spam.

Fun Finds

The Dilbert Blog's In Over My Head (via Seth Godin). What's your personal success rate?

Gizmodo says Happy Birthday VHS! I remember VHS. It's how I watched all those Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movies as a kid. I was rockin' back in the day.

Ze Frank plays worst ever. I love Ze.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 10/11/06 at 5:19 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email, SEO, SEO Tips & Tricks, Search Engine Optimization

September 20, 2006

How to protect yourself against email spam

A recent study conducted by McAfee, Inc. shows that spammers are getting increasingly more cunning in their attempt to flood your inbox with harmful email messages. According to the report, last month saw a 72 percent increase in the number of domains registered for solely for spam purposes. That's an alarming number.

McAfee Development Manager Guy Roberts:

“It’s a cat-and-mouse game where spammers try to change their URLs faster than the anti-spam companies can react. If it takes traditional blacklists 15 to 20 minutes to block a site, then that’s how fast the spammers need to change their URLs. Since domains cost only US$6 per registration, the spammer is spending less than US$100 for four hours of advertising.”

Spending $100 for less than four hours of advertising may seem like a substantial number, but in the spamming world it's not. Keep in mind that Jeremy Jaynes, the man who received a nine year sentence for the first-ever felony spamming conviction, was reported to have earned $750,000 a month for this trade. My trusty calculator tells me that equals out to $9 million a year. What's a couple hundred dollars when you're bringing in a movie star income?

The troubling part for users is that the more domains spammers open, and the faster they go, the more spam users are going to be met with. And the more domains and IPs get burned and blocklisted for innocent users who come later.

Today's spammers are smart. They have to be in order to bypass today's spam filters. It may take an almost impressive amount of work to be a successful spammer these days, but the work pays off. As Jeremy Jaynes showed us, spammers stand to make millions of dollars a year. As a result, Bigmouthmedia says the only way to deter spammers is with larger penalties.

"The lure for spammers is obvious. than just a temporary solution from big anti-spam companies. What we need is larger penalties, and bigger deterrents to decrease the potential spammers' desire to annoy us every day."

I couldn't agree more, but in order to enforce larger penalties, we need stronger legislation, especially overseas. The United States celebrated its first felony spamming conviction with Jaynes, but too many others have receive mere slap-on-the-wrist penalties where spammers were forced to shell out trivial fines. This is not conducive to fighting the war against spam. Spam is a criminal act that costs companies millions of dollars of year. It's time it be treated at such.

Here are some tips to help you protect your inbox against email spam:

• Use email-software with built-in spam filtering
• Be creative with your email address – An email address like 1a5tnam3@hotmail.com is harder to guess (and therefore spam) than lastname@hotmail.com. Use longer, multi-word email addresses that incorporate numbers and hyphens.
• Create throw-a-away email addresses – Don't use your primary email address when signing up for online offers or newsletters. Use emails that are easily disposable.
• Learn to disguise your email address – Have you ever wondered why forum users often type their email address as "lastname AT domainame DOT com? It's not because they're obnoxious (well, mostly), it actually prevents automated services that troll forums and newsgroup from being able to steal your email address.
• Disallow Images – Pictures in emails are often used as "beacons" to send information about you back to the sender. Disallow images coming from unknown senders.
• Update your programs – Spammers are becoming smarter and more cunning every day. Keeping your spam filter up-to-date leaves you better prepared to fight against today's spamming techniques.
• Be Cautious – Keep an eye out for those little checkboxes that automatically add your email to promotional lists. Also, beware of offers including an "opt out" feature, spammers often use this to confirm your email address is valid and may guarantee you receive even more spam.

When you do receive spam messages, and you will, don't open them. Many spammers are prudent analytics mavens and track their open rates to see which email addresses "worked". Continuing to open spammy emails may actually increase the level of spam you see appearing in your inbox.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/20/06 at 2:56 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

September 14, 2006

Spam Case Highlights Legal Flaws in the UK

Last week it was Jeremy Jaynes, this week it's Paul Fox. It just doesn't pay to be a spammer. Or does it?

When the spamming ways of Paul Fox resulted in him being found guilty of breaching Hotmail's terms and conditions this week, he not only won the honor of shelling out a total of $84,177 to Microsoft, it also earned him the distinction of being the guy responsible for the largest civil award against a spammer in Europe.

Congrats, Paul. We hear Microsoft's preferred payment is cash.

Microsoft sued Fox after they discovered he was spamming users by sending emails directing them toward his pornographic download site. Hotmail's terms and conditions specifically prohibit users from using any Microsoft service to send or deliver spam.

What's particularly interesting about this case is that Microsoft chose to sue for the terms breach instead of trying to get Fox for breaking UK's anti-spam laws.

Why would Microsoft choose to sue Fox civilly instead of in criminal court? Because the UK's spam laws are still very limited and it is very difficult to get a conviction.

As the law stands today, courts in the United Kingdom can only deal with spam originating within the UK, and even then the law seems almost fruitless.

Pinsent Masons lawyer Straun Robertson:

"The regulations generally don't stop spam being sent to work email addresses, and anyone wanting to sue a spammer has to be sure that the spam originates in the UK. They also have to show damage and claim compensation for that damage – rather than claiming for the cost of dealing with all spam received in their inbox."

Robertson also noted that when someone in the Information Commissioner's office witnesses an evidence of spam, often their only recourse is to send that person an order asking them to comply with the law. If the spammer refuses, the maximum fine is a mere £5,000 ($6,395). Not much of a deterrent for spammers who stand to make millions.

For individuals who want to take action against spammers themselves, the law makes it even harder. Under the law, they can only claim compensation for damage that has been caused as a result of the spam, which is often difficult to prove since it's typically not one spammer who has caused the damage.

Besides being a win for Microsoft, what Fox's case really did was demonstrate how limited the spam legislation is in the UK. It showed a clear failure in the UK's ability to fight and deter spam. Hopefully this case will force lawmakers to revisit and amend the 2003 Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations which house the anti-spam law.

By not amending the law, the United Kingdom is sending the wrong impression to spammers. It sends the message that spamming is not a crime. What is the use of passing anti-spam legislation if it's so weak and flawed that major corporations like Microsoft opt for civil suits over criminal ones? Who wins in that equation? The spammers do.

The idea of a civil suit will never be a strong enough deterrent for spammers. In this case, Fox was ordered to pay Microsoft more than $80,000, the largest sum ever required in a spam case in the UK. It sounds good on paper, but it's not too off-putting to a spammer who stands to make ten times that for continuing his nefarious activities.

Fox's actions cost him $80,000 this week, but that's nothing compared to the $113 billion spam is expected to cost businesses by 2007. Lawmakers in the UK need to step up and start protecting its citizens and corporations, not the spammers.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/14/06 at 2:55 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

September 13, 2006

Prepare Holiday Email Campaigns Now!

It won't be long before the 2006 holiday season hits, and once it does, savvy marketers will be waiting. But capitalizing on holiday traffic takes work. Smart marketers know the time to prepare for the holiday rush is now.

Not planning in advance puts your company at greater risk for spending more money over the long term and having to hurriedly design a holiday email campaign that fails to convert. Early planning gives you the time you need to revitalize stale email campaigns and perform tweaks that will lead to higher conversions and increased ROI.

ClickZ's Stefan Pollard highlighted emails viability and gave readers tips for successful email campaigning in his article Three Strategies Answer E-Mail's New Challenges. He says, in part:

"In the coming holiday season, e-mail marketers will invest more time, money and effort in e-mail marketing than in other channels, according to a recent WebTrends report, including print, broadcast and search marketing."

The WebTrends report that Stefan mentions ranked email marketing as "the most important demand-generation activity" for holiday success. It estimated that 52 percent of marketers would be increasing email spend this year.

Creating a captivating email campaign has become more important than ever before. To assist marketers, Stefan gives readers three tips for overcoming common email obstacles:

• Put more value in the first line of the message copy
• Dump the single, large image now!
• Resurrect your text-message template or design a new one

Stefan's first tip is a relative no-brainer, but I think the second two are very important.

Never rely on your image to convey the message of your email campaign. I can't tell you how many email newsletters I receive daily that display huge graphics -- graphics that by default don't load and appear as white blobs or red X's on my screen. Unless users change their email settings or opt to turn on your images, the message of your email will be lost. It's a sizable problem for marketers given that 65 percent of American email users have encountered default image suppression.

There's a second issue involved with using large images – they hinder readability. When you design your email campaign remember that many users will be viewing your email through a smaller preview pane. Preview panes won't resize your images for you. Instead, all of your important copy will be scrunched up to one side, making it almost impossible to read. You want users to click through your email, not click out.

Tip number three talks about the importance of providing a text-message for users to go along with the HTML message of your email. This is important for two reasons. First, not everyone can or wants to read an HTML message. Some users simply prefer text. It's your job to give them what they want. Unfortunately, this means you may have to create a unique text-based message. Simply copying and pasting the text from your HTML message likely won't transfer well.

Second, by giving users a text format of your email, it allows for increased readability when being view through a PDA or other mobile device. Remember, you want your campaign to be as user-friendly as possible.

If you haven't started thinking about your holiday email campaigns, let this be your reminder. By starting early and following the strategies developed by Stefan, marketers can lay the foundation needed to capitalize on the holiday traffic surge and increase conversions.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/13/06 at 11:46 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

September 6, 2006

Annoying Spammer Gets 9 Years

Jeremy Jaynes, once considered the eighth worst spammer in the world, will serve nine years in jail after the Virginia Court of Appeals rejected his appeal and upheld the nation's first felony conviction of illegal spamming. On Tuesday, the courts ruled that Virginia's anti-spamming statute does not violate the First Amendment and that Jeremy is a just big baby.

Sorry, spammers.

Jeremy was convicted on three counts of violating VA's anti-spam law after using false Internet addresses and aliases to send tens of thousands of emails to AOL customers in 2004, reportedly earning $750,000 a month through his trade.

Jeremy, clearly now a defender of civil rights, argued that Virginia's anti-spamming statute violated his First Amendment right to anonymous free speech and that the Dormant Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over electronic transactions, was "constitutionally vague".

Unfortunately for Jeremy, the courts didn't buy it.

"But the three-judge panel disagreed, ruling in an opinion written by Judge James W. Haley Jr. that circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over felonies committed in their areas. The anti-spam law, Haley said, "prohibits trespassing on private computer networks through intentional misrepresentation, an activity that merits no First Amendment protection."

That last part puts a smirk on my face every time. It might be that journalism background.
Interesting to me is that had Jeremy been sending "just" 10,000 unsolicited emails in a day, or 100,000 in a 30-day period, his annoying habit would have been perfectly legal. It's only once you start exceeding that limit and hide your identity that the act becomes a crime.

Anyone else think that statute needs to be tweaked? Clearly if you are sending out 10,000 unsolicited emails a day you are a spammer. If you're sending out 5,000 or 3,000 or 2,000 unsolicited emails a day you're a spammer. Why do we have to wait to hit some magic threshold before a crime is labeled a crime? It doesn't make sense to me, especially if you're serious about obliterating spam.

I also found this passage from the ruling interesting (emphasis added):

"Among those items seized during a search of appellant's home were compact discs containing both user names and full email addresses. The CDs contained at least 176 million full email addresses and over 1.3 billion user names. Appellant also possessed a DVD containing not only AOL email addresses, but also other personal and private account information for millions of AOL users. Finally, police collected multiple "zip discs" (another type of data storage" containing 107 million AOL email addresses. All of the AOL user names, email addresses and account information were stolen and illegally in appellant's possession."

I feel like there was another crime committed here. What kind of "personal and private account information" did Jeremy collect and how did he go about collecting it? Better yet, what did he do with it (besides abusing their email addresses)? Are we talking identify theft now?

The court document estimated that spam accounts for more than half of all email traffic and that it will cost corporations more than $113 billion dollars by 2007. Maybe that number won't be quite so high with people like Jeremy Jaynes locked out of the tubular interwebs.

Yesterday's court ruling was an important one because it helped to reinforce the seriousness and costly nature of email spam. Despite being an annoying and despicable practice, it also has the power to cost businesses millions of dollars in lost revenue. That slap-on-the-wrist punishment awarded to 19-year-old spammer David Lennon a few weeks back wasn't sufficient. Maybe this is.
These cases are also introducing spammers and Web users to the existence of newly developed spamming statutes that they may have been unaware of. The anti-spamming statute Jaynes was convicted of was implemented just days before he was charged. If that doesn't put at tiny grin on your face then clearly you've never opened up your inbox and been greeted by 80 percent spam and 20 percent good stuff.

It's good to see the courts keeping up with the times and punished the deserving to be punished. If you're worried about spam and unsure about what steps you can take to combat it, we recommend you read through our Email Tools page. We've collected a list of resources that may be of interest.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/ 6/06 at 11:56 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

June 2, 2006

Time to Dump Email? And Use What?

Kelly Martin, the editor of Symantec's online SecurityFocus magazine, says the time has come to 'ditch the 'sinking ship' that is email, which over the years has become nothing but a 'terrible mess'. Kelly advises users to admit defeat to the spammers who have turned email into a 'dangerous, insecure, unreliable, mostly unwanted and out of control' tool of mass destruction. Is that Symantec's official stance?

Kelly calls for a complete abandonment of the current form of email because trying to fix the current system would be like' rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'. What's our other option? To jump ship? We saw how well that worked for Jack.

I don't buy into Kelly's the good-guys-can't-win approach to email. Especially when he can't offer up an effective alternative. Anyone can pick apart something; the difficulty arises when you try to create something in its place.

You can't abolish email. Why? Because more than one billion people currently have an email account. Most have more than one. I don't believe you can erase something that has been that well-adopted, that mainstream, and pretend it never existed. It would be like trying to deny me my morning coffee. You can try, but you may lose a finger.

Abolishing email just because spammers have found a way in seems harsh. There will always be individuals looking for loopholes. There will always be those looking to take advantage of the system. Scratching the old email system and creating a new one won't end this phenomenon, and the entire idea is rather impractical.

But Martin is right. With reports that almost half of all emails coming in are considered spam, something needs to done. But, what's the alternative? Should we start leaving each other Post its in offensively bright colors? No, they haven't made that glue strong enough yet. Revert back to phone calls? Wrong; there are too many solicitors and too much actual talking to one another involved in that. Bulletin boards? Nope, spammers will just hit there too.

We need to step forward, not backwards. A company taking a large step forward are the folks behind the 1st Certified email system. 1st Certified is free to download and aims to help users regain their trust in email by automatically sorting users' email for them. How does it do this?

Each time you send an email, 1st Certified makes a digital fingerprint, which is then verified and turned into a unique Digital Stamp. The stamp is then imbedded into your original email and used to certify messages from that address later on.

When you receive an email from another person who has 1stCertified installed, the “Digital Stamp” is examined and verified for authenticity. If both fingerprints match, the email is directed to the appropriate Certified mail folder. If it doesn't, 1stCertified directs the email into the recipient’s regular Inbox. Emails coming from non-1st Certified users are automatically placed in a user's regular inbox.

What separates 1st Certified from the array of other email programs out there is that 20 percent of their revenue goes to a user-selected charity. This includes large international organizations like the Red Cross to smaller hometown causes. With 1st Certified, everyone wins.

Of course, the more people in your network that download 1st Certified, the more useful the service will be. Unfortunately, 1st Certified and others like it may have an uphill battle, as getting the average user to switch email programs is often a struggle.

But it's a start, and a free one at that. The 'free' is important as users have already proven they won't take to an email tax (sorry AOL).

For all its flaws, email remains an effective and beloved form of communication. Today's spam filters have become increasingly smarter and able to divert spammy messages before users even see them. Instead of writing off email completely, let's look at ways to make it better. Let's improve it instead of just scrapping the old.

Unless you want to resort back to smoke signals. And in that case, I am totally okay with that. Otherwise, I think email is safe for now.

(via Slashdot)

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/ 2/06 at 3:13 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

May 24, 2006

Time to Dust off Those Email Campaigns!

The weather is warmer, the days are getting longer and Memorial Day is almost upon us. Do you know that means? Yes, it's time for a little spring cleaning! Only we're not talking about cleaning out your house or your dangerously cluttered garage. We're more concerned with the current state of your email campaigns.

If you haven't started an email campaign, we don't know what you're waiting for. Its importance is immeasurable – actually, it's very measurable, and that's one of the many perks!

However, working off an outdated email list benefits no one. Take a look at your email stats. Figure out who's reading those monthly emails you're sending out and who's not. While it's good to be persistent, continuing to send email to a customer who hasn't opened one in a year increases your chance of having them label you spam. While one spam complaint may not hurt you, if your count reaches 1 to 3 percent, your ISP may decide to take action. And if you're sending out hundreds of emails each month, it only takes a handful to reach that pivotal 1 percent mark.

As a reward for trimming your email list fat, you may notice an immediate change in your e-mail metrics, including a considerably higher open rate and an enhanced click-through rate. This is a result of you targeting a more dedicated set of readers. Additionally, if you're paying your email service provider per hundred sent, cutting the fat is a good way to lower costs and increase your ROI.

Once you get your list back in shape, it's time to look at your stats and start analyzing those numbers. After all, one of the greatest benefits of implementing an email campaign is its ability to be tracked. Not taking advantage of its built-in monitoring system is not only dangerous, it's bad business. Reviewing your statistics will enable you to ask yourself some very important questions.

• What do your click-through rates look like?
• How many users opted-out of each email?
• What topics are getting the most click-throughs?
• Are readers forwarding your emails to family and friends?
• What's your percentage of bounces?

Tracking click-throughs will help you get a better understanding of what your customers are interested in. You will be able to pinpoint which topics are most popular and which are going unread, as well as determine who is reading and who's not to aid tighter targeting, and show you where your leads and sales are coming from so you can cease unprofitable tactics. The changes you implement will also show readers you're listening to them, which they are likely to reward with increased loyalty.

Dusting off and revitalizing those campaigns will help you tweak and better target your emails to give you the greatest possible ROI. We believe the time you spend adjusting campaigns to reflect newly acquired data will be given back to you in the form of more successful email campaigns, increased conversions and elevated profits.

Isn't Spring fun?

Posted by Lisa Barone on 05/24/06 at 11:29 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

May 12, 2006

If it's good enough for PPC, it's good enough for Email

We thought now would be a good time to remind you about your email campaigns. You remember, it's that thing you haven't touched since you sent out your first one. Yes, that. Consider it our gift to you.

There has been a lot of talk concerning behavioral advertising lately, specifically when dealing with your PPC campaigns. But how about using that information and applying it to your email campaign instead? We thinking employing behavioral advertising to better target emails can make the difference in whether your email campaign converts or dies.

Behavioral advertising targets users based on previous searching and buyer behavior. It's tracking and analyzing your customers' interests by using their IP address to monitor their movements across the Web. This typically involves using cookies to track what sites your customers visit, what content they viewed and how long they stick around.

While regular targeting shows you how to appeal to the whole, behavioral targeting allows you to appeal to specific customer groups.

For example, if a user frequently visits sites like Men's Health, Maxim and WWE, behavioral targeting would likely classify this user a male, likely in his late teens to mid-20s, interested in health and fitness. Creating this profile will allow you to better target this user in the future, you may even want to create a specific email campaign just for users similar to him. The strength of behavioral targeting comes from its narrowed focus.

And while we think behavioral advertising will help increase conversions, there are some experts touting large obstacles. Many associate behavioral advertising with the coming of 'big brother'. They paint a grim picture of corporations spying on their users to find out what information they're looking at. That's not how we view it.

We view behavioral advertising as the analysis of the data you should be collecting anyway. You should know who your target audience is. You should be tracking customer activity and email campaigns to see who is clicking on or showing an interest in what. You should be keeping records of what this customer has bought in the past and what they have expressed interest in seeing in the future. Doing this is not spying, not doing it would be bad business. If a customer is making daily trips to the LA Times site, you're not reading the articles they're interested in, it simply tells you they're interested in current events.

Of course, this task gets harder as more people disable cookies, and spyware programs urge users to delete all personal information. Also, it's possible that multiple people are using the same computer, causing their IP address to show up for a variety of sites. Mom may be reading Cosmo, while Billy is checking out sports scores. If you find this is the case, send out an email addressing your customers and ask them what sites they frequent, how often they're online, what are the things important to them, etc.

Once you have this information you should break your customer base down into different groups. We recommend using personas to help you in this process. If you're a shoe company, maybe you want to create one newsletter for users who have a history for buying sandals, another for those who only buy running shoes and one to users who buy business shoes.
By targeting your campaigns based on past behavior, you will see a higher rate in conversions as you continue to give your customer base what they are really interested in. It will also increase goodwill as customers feel like you are really listening and addressing their needs. Remember, the purpose of your email campaign isn't to get clicks, it's to increase conversions.

For more information regarding Behavioral Targeting, read our latest Branding article. Or if you just need help setting up an email campaign, including newsletters, we can help you with that too.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 05/12/06 at 2:53 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Email

April 14, 2006

Did AOL get caught censoring emails?

Poor AOL. They just can't get away from the drama over their certified email program. This time they're facing attacks from non-profit group MoveOn.org who claim AOL began censoring emails that contained links to petition site DearAOL.com. After MoveOn.org made their initial claims, more than 150 people who signed a petition for AOL tried sending messages and received an error message that alerted them their email 'failed permanently' and would not be delivered. AOL claimed a glitch in the system, but non–profits cried foul.

DearAOL.com is an online petition that protests AOL's plans to begin charging an email tax to route email around its spam filters. The online petition has been signed by over 40,000 people so far.

Turning the situation into a complete PR fiasco, upon hearing the news, news site CNet sent out a test email to AOL with the DearAOL.com URL inside it and found it too came back undelivered. Well, that doesn't look good, does it?

When MoveOn.org realized their emails were not be delivered they sent out notices to everyone on its email list claiming that AOL was purposely censoring the protest emails. Taking full advantage, they pointed towards Wednesday's computer glitch as even more evidence that AOL does not have its customers' best interests in mind and should not be allowed to tax emails.

AOL says the blockage was due to a 'glitch' that incorrectly labeled several of the sites as being spammers. An AOL exec said there was 'absolutely no commonality' among the 50 or so sites that were affected. Well, except that a number of the affected emails contained the DearAOL URL. AOL execs pointed they have delivered 'millions and millions' of emails correctly. Yes, yes you have. But that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

And while I love conspiracy theories just as much as the next paranoid blogger, I just can't believe that AOL was purposely trying to censor emails. First, the petition being circulated has been making the rounds for two months now. It doesn't seem viable that AOL has all of sudden decided to start blocking it. Secondly, it's not as if the 'blocked' emails would go unnoticed. It would be ridiculous to think AOL purposely censored the protest-related emails and didn't think it would get traced back to them.

With the amount of email being sent over AOL, you're bound to have a few bouncebacks. Does it look bad that some of the bounced emails were related to MoveOn.org's campaign to stop AOL's CertifiedEmail program? Yes. But what about the emails that got bounced back that didn't have the nefarious URL inside? I think Wednesday's glitch was just that. A glitch. With some really bad timing.